Some Soft Drinks May Damage Your DNA

Parallax Blue writes "The Independent is reporting new findings that indicate a common additive called sodium benzoate, found in soft drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max among others, has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA in a cell's mitochondria. From the article: 'The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it — as happens in a number of diseased states — then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA — Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of aging.' European Union MPs are now calling for an urgent investigation in the wake of these alarming new findings."

Comments

And what about the U.S.?

[pcmanjon]

"uropean Union MPs are now calling for an urgent investigation in the wake of these alarming new findings"

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hey!]

Certainly. And cyanide occurs in many stone fruits (peaches, plums etc). But it occurs only in trace amounts and people don't eat that much stone fruits -- even vegetarians.

The problem is that so many people have substituted soda for water.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mr_matticus]

The reason why you feel like crap when eating something unusual is because you've allowed that consumption to lax and your body has adjusted to that diet. It does not follow that eating at Wendy's occasionally makes people ill. It makes YOU ill because your body is no longer accustomed to it.

Along the same vein, vegetarians are encouraged to eat meat occasionally so that the enzymes that are intended to ingest it can remain in proper balance. If you're a vegetarian and never eat meat for years on end, but then one day you can't pass on that ham sandwich, it's going to hurt. That doesn't mean that people who eat meat are living a worse life.

Likewise, if you grew up on a simple and narrow diet, say, for the sake of argument, something typical of a highland/steppe agrarian diet--grains and meat, and you suddenly ate spicy Indian food for a week, you'd probably have some digestive regrets.

I'm not saying the opposite, either--eating fast food and sugar all the time is certainly not good for you. But if you make it a habit to eat a highly restricted diet, then breaking that diet will cause you pain. Eating an appropriate diet with moderation of all kinds of foods is no less healthy and far more fun. It's okay to eat at McDonald's sometimes if you like it. It's okay to order that six-chocolate pie on your birthday. It's okay to tear into that Haagen-Daaz when your week has gone to shit. It's habitual abuse of these foods that cause problems.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[badasscat]

Ah yes, aspartame, the health bugaboo du jour among internet users.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Read through that, including all of the links at the bottom. Why not talk about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it? It's responsible for everything from leukemia to water poisoning. It's so dangerous that it will literally eat away unprotected metal if exposed for a number of years. It's like an acid! Now that's powerful stuff - and powerful dangerous!

For what it's worth I'm not surprised to hear about the link between aspartame and migraines.

People looking for a connection between something they suspect to be dangerous and any potential health issues - no matter how anecdotal - are never surprised to find those connections. And those anecdotes will eventually form a "proven" theory in their minds.

This does not constitute scientific proof of anything, however. But it is the way these internet rumors get started.

Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.)

As for sodium benzoate, I would suspect that the FDA hasn't done anything about it because there's nothing that needs to be done about it. Not that I think the FDA never makes mistakes or isn't occasionally beholden to corporate interests, but sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's and, like many such internet health bugaboos, is a naturally occuring substance in "healthy" foods you probably eat every day - including (according to Wikipedia) cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now. Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?

With all the health scares out there, you'd think our very lives were being cut short by chemical additives. Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives. I'm not saying it isn't better to eat natural foods - I try to do so myself as much as possible. But it does nothing other than add to your stress level (which does reduce lifespan) to constantly be worrying about the possible negative effects of the stuff in your food, especially when it's been neither scientifically proven nor peer-reviewed.

And with regard to diet soda specifically, there is no even alleged effect of aspartame or sodium benzoate - no matter how crackpot - that is worse than the proven health effects of drinking all the empty calories in a non-diet soda. Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path. "All these chemicals are dangerous!" No, what's dangerous is being fat. So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water. Going back to drinking regular soda instead of diet because you're worried about your health just makes you a hypocrite - or an idiot.

nothing new

[wizardforce]

this is nothing new, sodium benzoate is used as a preservative in acidic foods and drinks and in the presence of citric acid it can evolve very small amounts of benzene. benzene is dangerous because it is what we call an intercalary mutagen- what that means is it can insert its self between the DNA helix grooves and that is what can mess up DNA copying and transcription [translation from DNA to RNA to proteins etc.] in the USA benzene is allowed at 10ppb but in soem states it can be lower [california is 5ppb] to give an idea of how much that is an olympic swimming pool is 25,000 gallons, 95,000 liters and so 10ppb would be about a gram of benzene taken by weight. soft drinks in other countries have been reported to have up to 85 ppb although this can be fixed by reducing the amount of sodium benzoate and or citric acid in combination. citric acid can be replaced by malic acid which imparts that sour flavor in drinks.

A no win situation

[rolfwind]

Soda rots your teeth and probably contributes to diabetes II.

Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any.

And all the sugar-substitue additives have been questions for years.

Drink Water or at worst carbonated water. Maybe a little tea or iced tea made from decent leaves (not the garbage leaves in lipton surrounded by bleached paper to dunk in water), or even a little expresso.

Leave out the soda pop, leave out most of the milk (thought to contribute to kidney stones), leave out the juice, etcetera. And for god's sake leave out anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup - poison. Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.

The funny thing is, we have access to the cleanest water in history, without it being muddy or full of minerals, and we found a "need" to have all this oversweetened garbage instead.

It's not hard, start drinking for a week - you'll be over the sweet addiction. I like ice water the best. If you have to, treat yourself to a juice drink or milk once a day.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

but the positive effects are mainly economic

we have been genetically modifying foods in one way or another for hundreds of years- only now are we using genes from OTHER species. crops engineered to be resistant to a certain pest can reduce the amount of pesticide or [ergot fungus] that gets into the food supply. there are genes that over time have broken or exist in similar but uncrossable species that are very useful. in the case of yellow rice for example, a gene for beta carotene was introduced resulting in a rice that can help prevent blindness in third world countries where rice is a major food crop. the gene that produces vitamin C in mammals is broken in primates and other species that if corrected could prevent scurvy in malnourished nations. it is good to test and try to understand the effects of genetic engineering but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible

No kidding.

[zCyl]

Not to mention sodium benzoate causes headaches in a good percentage of humans, and over the long term has been found to trigger obesity and diabetes in lab rats. (It might do this in humans too over the long term, but it's hard to get humans to sign up for such studies.)

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that people drink diet sodas that are loaded with this, and they think they are doing their body a favor.

romantic and calvinistic notions?

[nietsch]

"Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it."
Sorry, but do you have any proof for this except from "it should be, because out ancestors did it"? You may disguise it with some evolutionary selection handwaving, but basically you are propagating the romantic notion of 'le bon sauvage' (the good wild [man]). Did you ever compare the average lifespan of 'our ancestors' with the current average lifespan? Maybe current culture does some things detrimental to your health, but overall it is much better then what our ancestors had to go through if you measure it by lifespan.
The other hidden argument that you use is that it is morally better to restrict yourself and almost never indulge on luxury. What are you, some monk that derives pleasure (oh no, bad!) from chastising himself?
The article was about someone making a health scare over an additive that has been tested and approved decades ago, on the basis of some muddy test in-vitro by, afaict, one researcher. Where are the references to peer-reviewed journals, have others replicated his results, etc. People apparently have a hard time understanding that a poison is not only in the substance, but also in the dose. It could very well be that with normal consumption you never reach a significant dose that has any effect at all.
I think that there is more danger in the trip to the grocery store wit your car, than there is in the additives in the soda pop you buy there.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[jafiwam]

Actually, for a good portion of European history mild beer was pretty much the safest way to get liquid. Not only did it provide some calories and vitamins, it sterilized the water and helped lots of ugly Europeans get their groove on. They went on to dominate the world for a long time.

I, for one am doing my part to uphold European tradition by consuming large quantities of beer.

You are right though, the article is suspected FUD until proven to be FUD. Look for some bottled water company funding it in the background....

No publication?

[jenik]

PubMed doesn't seem to have any papers on this, at least by this Piper guy... I'll wait for a peer reviewed publication.

Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[saforrest]

the gene that produces vitamin C in mammals is broken in primates and other species that if corrected could prevent scurvy in malnourished nations. it is good to test and try to understand the effects of genetic engineering but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible

You're not just talking about genetically engineering foods, but now humans? On a massive, global scale?

1) Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for higher primates for a reason: our ancestors ate a lot of it, and thus no longer needed to produce it. These genes for synthesizing it that you want to "reactivate" haven't been expressed for millions of years, which means they haven't been selected on (to the same degree). For a programming analogy, how quickly does commented-out code become obsolete?

It's not at all clear that we're still capable of synthesizing Vitamin-C, that it's just a matter of "turning on" a gene somewhere: it might require extensive implantation of non-primate mammalian DNA into our genomes. And this is not a small change.

2) Who would research and administer this genetic re-engineering system? Big Pharmaceutical, that's who. You're naive if you think there's any good side to letting go about re-engineering the genes of any person, let alone impoverished people who are in less of a position to speak up about abuses.

3) I frequently hear pitches like this, for certain types of technological solutions which could save the lives of the desperate poor. In addition to your suggestion, we could, for example:
  - i) genetically engineer a number of crops with higher yields, providing more food,
  - ii) blanket Africa with DDT, killing mosquitoes (and therefore preventing malaria transmission),
  - iii) actively destroy swampland in rural Africa and other tropical regions, to reduce the size of mosquito breeding grounds.
The argument for these technologies (saved human lives) is easy to advance. There are various specific counterarguments to be used for specific cases, but there are two general counterarguments:

A straightforward swap of human lives in exchange for some consequence we haven't defined or investigated is never a great idea. What if we replace all crops with engineered ones, but those are all wiped out ten years later by a plague that preys on the new genetic homogenity of these crops? What if there's something else that grows in swamps that, it turns out, we really need? The appeal to lives saved is always an emotional appeal, but there's no point to the trade if we don't know the price.

The reasons for Third World poverty are not technological, but social and political. We could give more food to hungry people now; we don't need to wait till we get higher-yield crops. (To relate to your example, we could send Vitamin-C pills to malnurished nations now: surely this would be cheaper that a widespread program of genetic re-engineering!) And if we aren't giving it away now, aren't we fooling ourselves by thinking that we will when we have more to give away?

Re:rots your brain as well

[Kierthos]

Okay, here's some numbers for you...

The acceptable FDA levels for caffiene consumption is 200 mg/day. (please note the lack of any determination of this based on how much you weigh.)

The acceptable FDA levels for aspartame consumption is 50 mg/kg of body weight. The more you weigh, the more you can acceptably consume. (The American Diabetic Association disagrees, and puts the acceptable levels at 17 mg/kg of body weight.)

The acceptable FDA levels for sodium benzoate consumption is 340 mg/day. Again, note the lack of any change in this based on your body weight.

Now, sodium benzoate is what the article is about, right? So, how much sodium benzoate is in a soda?

All of these are for 12 oz. cans.

Pepsi: 1.15 mg
Mountain Dew: 2.3 mg
Diet Mountain Dew: 2.5 mg
Dr Pepper: 1.15 mg
Coke: 1.15 mg
Diet Coke: 2.5 mg

So, if you're a Dr Pepper "junkie" like me, you'd have to drink almost 300 cans a day before you would have to worry about being above the FDA guidelines.

Now, yes, of course, it's possible that the FDA data is out of date. Yes, it's possible that there hasn't been enough study and maybe the acceptable levels of sodium benzoate need to be adjusted.

Even if they're off by a factor of 10, how many people do you know that drink 30 Pepsis a day?

More research, less scare tactics. Thank you.

Re:Frogurt

[tgd]

Um... 25 was not mid life...

The average age expectancy has gone up because child mortality rates dropped, not because people are living longer. People who survived childhood have been living into their 80's at a minimum for centuries and there's little evidence that it changed much even before then.

Now the real question is, did you really not know that, or did you know it and were playing on the fact that many people don't to push your position in your reply?

Re:rots your brain as well

[thelandp]

Wow ... your logic seems to be: This finding about sodium benzoate disagrees with the previous FDA position. Therefore it must be wrong.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which that this is a new finding about the dangers of this substance. Naturally the previous FDA numbers would be out of date if the new finding is true. And your example of a factor of ten is completely spurious - where did you get the ten figure from?

More thought, less posts. Thank you.

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[node 3]

You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else You know what? Fuck you.

First off, there's nothing wrong with lawsuits. They are the civilized way to resolve disputes. The only alternatives are to: A. resort to force or B. take whatever injustice you are unable to prevent (which is what you are advocating). This notion that lawsuits are bad is extremely disturbing.

Second, whether there's a lawsuit or not, there's a cost involved in the actions which the construction company and land developer (in this case) should be completely aware of. Namely, their actions may lead to the *DEATHS* of others. This cost is not part of the initial construction project, and is paid for by the victims. In any rational, civilized society, this is called an injustice. The point of a lawsuit in this case is to rectify (as much as possible) the injustice. Specifically, to force the developer to pay the costs for their actions, and not force them on to others.

Why is it that the anti-lawsuit types always seem to promote the notion that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, yet when it comes to corporations, any attempt to use the legal system to enforce responsibility for *their* actions is seen as some sort of atrocity?